On the Reception and Detection of Pseudo-Profound Bullshit

• Published in: Judgment and Decision Making Vol. 10; no. 6; pp. 549 - 563
• Main Authors: Pennycook, Gordon, Allan Cheyne, James, Barr, Nathaniel, Koehler, Derek J., Fugelsang, Jonathan A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Tallahassee Society for Judgment and Decision Making 01.11.2015; Society for Judgment & Decision Making; Cambridge University Press
• Subjects: Analysis; analytic thinking; Bias; bullshit; bullshit detection; Cognition & reasoning; complementary and alternative medicine.NAKeywords; conspiratorial ideation; Decision making; Dishonesty; dual-process theories; Judgment; Personality tests; Philosophers; Reception theory; religiosity; Studies; supernatural beliefs; United States; religiosity; conspiratorial ideation; dual-process theories; analytic thinking; bullshit; bullshit detection; complementary and alternative medicine; supernatural beliefs
• ISSN: 1930-2975; 1930-2975
• DOI: 10.1017/s1930297500006999

Abstract Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”). Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bullshit statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among profundity judgments for more conventionally profound (e.g., “A wet person does not fear the rain”) or mundane (e.g., “Newborn babies require constant attention”) statements. These results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type of bullshit and that detecting it is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our results also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity.